Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, August 5, 1971
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 A'bercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Gerard L. Frey, D.O. President
Rev. Francis J. Donohue, Editor John E. Markwalter, Managing Editor
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Send Change of Address toP.O. Box 10027, Savannah, Ga. 31402
Published weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and August and the last week in December.
At 202 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Subscription Price $2.78 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah Others $5 Per Year
^iSSS*:!:**:*:*:*:*:?*:*:^
A Mess
Of Pottage
In India, where both food and
overpopulation have been enormous
problems, the government is faking men
out of their birthright by offering
glamorous gifts. Reports indicate that
during the first half of July alone some
26,000 men had submitted to
vasectomies in what has been termed a
“family planning festival.” The Indian
government’s goal is 50,000 men
sterilized during the month long
celebration.
Among gifts presented to the
emasculated were 25 rupees in cash, a
free lottery ticket, a new sari for the
wife, three kilos of rice, a week’s ration,
an umbrella and a tote bag. The total
value would likely work out to about
$26 -- about $2 more than was paid the
Canarsee Indians for Manhattan Island.
Perhaps life is cheap in India, but is
this any reason to cheapen it further by
seducing men with gifts? The prizes
themselves will be gone within the year,
but the power to be a co-creator once
frittered away cannot for certain be
regained.
This anti-life tactic will undoubtedly
have the same result as in Japan where
abortion is the technique, India will in a
generation find itself without young
strong producers and workers and yet
will be faced with sustaining a
population of many hundreds of
millions.
And now it seems the United States
wants to imitate the folly of the Indians
and the Japanese. That government
funds are being used in health clinics in
this nation for sterilization is shameful.
Instead of working to improve life, we
seem to want to solve problems by
eliminating people.
Sterilization, voluntary or otherwise,
is a crime against nature -- unless,
however, there are valid medical reasons.
What is frightening is that a policy of
sterilization funding can lead to a policy
of involuntary sterilization. At best, it
can result only in welfare recipients
being encouraged (cajoled? forced?) into
sterilization or other means of birth
control.
And this we condemn out of hand, for
it will demean men and women and
make sex and life worthless.
-The Florida Catholic,
Orlando, Fla. - 7/23/71
Tracts For The Times
FR. MARVIN R. O’CONNEL
I heard the other day about a priest who, like
many these days, had resigned from the active
ministry and had taken a job in industry. He
still kept in touch, however, with his priest
friends, several of whom invited him to take a
vacation with them just after Christmas, a
notoriously slow time in most parishes. When
he asked his supervisor for a couple of weeks
off in January, he was told that he had not
worked for the company long enough to
qualify for any vacation time. He
went home and thought about his
new state in life, while his friends
took their skis and flew off to the
snowy mountains of Colorado,
wnen they returned, they
discovered that their friend was
now back in the priesthood.
I cannot say whether this series
of events actually happened, though it might
have. In any case, one could put a very cynical
construction on it, which is not my purpose
here. Any Catholic, and particularly any priest,
knows that the decision to leave the ministry is
an excruciating one, and the agonies involved -
whosever fault they may be - are not a fit
subject for sarcasm. No, I tell the story to point
up something else which might not be obvious
to many laymen.
The recent sociological and psychological
studies, sponsored by the American bishops,
seem to indicate that the greatest source of
dissatisfaction among priests stems from their
lack of freedom to determine the course of
their professional lives or to define for
themselves their life-style. The complaints
about celibacy, which receive from the public a
disproportionate amount of attention, can
often (but of course not exclusively) be seen as
an expression of priests’ desire not so much for
a normal sexual life in itself as for the right to
make up their own minds about marriage rather
than have bachelorhood imposed on them as a
condition of priestly activity. This is why we
hear so much these days about “optional
celibacy” and why a lot of priests not
interested themselves in marrying still favor
such an option.
Notice, I am talking about the priest-freedom
problem, not the ascetic worth of celibacy, or
the biblical and theological soundness of its
universal imposition, which are separate
questions. Similarly, matters of relative
triviality, like clerical dress and housing
(apartment versus rectory living) take on a new
dimension when viewed in the context of the
freedom debate. So the priest who appears at
the Altar and Rosary society meeting in his
powder blue suit, pink shirt and hand-painted
tie may be trying, in admittedly, a juvenile way,
to declare his freedom as a son of God.
Yet no group of men has as much day-to-day
freedom as American Catholic priests. They are
not servants of time clocks. Except for some
very minimal requirements, their schedule is
their own. This does not mean they are
slackers; most of them work very hard, but
they do so in a manner and at a pace agreeable
to themselves. As for professional supervision,
there is practically none; indeed, there is far too
little. Performance standards are non-existant,
and once ordained, at the tender age of
twenty-five, a man is allowed to do pretty
much as he likes. This situation has its
advantages and disadvantages, but in terms of
practical freedom it remains an enviable one.
Well, then, what’s all the trouble about? Th e
trouble comes because this wide range of
individualism enjoyed by priests must be
exercised within limits. There’s the rub, those
broad but stiff conditions within which a priest
is free to plan his own day, to take winter
vacations, to pursue an avocation, even to be
more or less eccentric. Celibacy is one of these
conditions and obedience to the bishop is the
other. (The recitation of the breviary used to be
a third, but substitutes and non-compliance
abound these days to the point it can hardly
count any more.) Attached to these basics are
certain conventions of external behavior — like
the Roman collar -- which are variable. Inside
these roomy barriers a multitude of
individualisms can enjoy free rein. But the
priest who goes outside them goes outside the
club as well, outside what Eugene Kennedy
calls “the clerical culture.”
It seemed to me a fair enough bargain 15
years ago, and it still does. I’m sure debate
about it can be useful if it is carried on in a
responsible manner. But when all the talk is
over, one fundamental fact will remain: a man
becomes a priest in order to serve and to the
extent that his individualism gets in the way of
his service he is seeking not to free but to
indulge himself.
It Seems To Me
J
Joseph Breiu
Years ago I sat through an
endless night wrestling with
the Lord for the life of our
5-year-old daughter. She had
come to us, greatly desired,
after the death of our first
child at birth. From the time
of the earliest intimations of
her presence in the womb, we
had watched over her in
prayer, con
ducting her
day by day
toward a
happy delivery
into our arms.
Now she lay
in a hospital
suffering from
a raging infection and fever
that would kill her unless
halted.
Dawn was paling the
windows when at last God
said, “Very well, then.”
Suddenly and absolutely,
somehow I knew that our
little one would recover. An
hour later, her temperature
had fallen to normal.
I relate this as a kind of
apology to readers for writing
so much about abortion. I am
tortured by the spectacle of
mothers being propagandized
into procuring the murders of
their own unborn babies, and
in so doing poisoning their
own happiness. And I am
deeply disturbed that many
Catholics do not face this
tremendous moral issue
squarely.
Not long ago, a Jesuit.
Garth L. Hallett, published,
in America magazine, an
article, “The Plain Meaning of
Abortion.” He condemned
abortion and upheld the right
to life of the unborn from the
time of conception. But at
one point he fell into the
“soul trap.” He said that
neither philosophy nor
revelation, “nor both
together, can render a clear
verdict of whether a fetus at
each stage of development
does or does not possess a
soul.”
This is error compounded.
The body does not “possess a
soul.” The soul “possesses the
body”-indeed forms the
body. The “soul” is simply
the life in any living thing.
When a tomato seed
germinates, you have tomato
life-tomato “soul”. It is a
mortal soul, which dies when
the plant dies.
When the human ovum in
the human mother is
fertilized by the human
sperm, we have human life-a
human “soul” which is
immortal and is destined for
life everlasting with God.
“Soul” is simply the life that
comes into existence, by the
will of God, at the moment
of conception.
The Virgin Mary
introduced herself at Lourdes
as ‘‘The Immaculate
Conception”. St. Bernadette
did not understand the
term-indeed had never heard
it before--but she reported it
precisely and repeatedly to
Church authorities. And the
Church has infallibly defined
that Mary was preserved from
original sin from the instant
of her conception in the
womb, because at that
moment she came into
existence as a human life, a
human “soul,” an immortal
human being destined for the
Queenship of Heaven.
Neither she nor the Church
spoke of an “immaculate
birth,” or an “immaculate
fetus,” or an “immaculate
zygote”. What has been
revealed to us is the
Immaculate Conception.
From conception, what is
present in the human womb
is an individual, unique
human being, distinct from
every other human being ever
conceived or ever to be
conceived. Thus speaks divine
revelation, through Mary and
through the Church. And this
is now confirmed by such
sciences as genetics and
microbiology, disclosing to us
the presence, from
conception, of the marvellous
DNA code which sets each
human being apart from all
others. If you kill this human
being, you kill one who will
never be duplicated, a
particular unique child of
God. As the Second Vatican
Council said, abortion, like
infanticide, is an unspeakable
sin and crime.
(LA^
Missionaries
Wanted
ANyUJH6f?t
“We don’t exactly look upon Paris as a mission
field.”
&
1
>:+:■
( The
Y ardstick
\ - >
MSGR. GEORGE C. HIGGINS
The Survey Research Center of the
University of California, Berkeley, was
commissioned nine years ago by the
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith to
conduct a major sociological study of the roots
of anti-Semitism in the United States. The
findings of this exhaustive study (the end of
which, we are told, is not yet in sight) are being
published at irregular intervals in a series of
volumes known as the “Patterns of American (
Prejudice Series.”
The most recent of the six volumes published
thus far as a part of this series is entitled
“Wayward Shepherds: Prejudice and the
Protestant Clergy” (Harper and Row, New
York, $6.95). Whereas most of the earlier
volumes in the series concentrated almost
exclusively on the roots of anti-Semitism, this
one, for reasons which are not entirely clear to
the present writer, also takes up the question as
to whether or not the Protestant clergy are
effectively using the power of the pulpit to
combat the major social and economic
problems confronting the United States at the
present time.
The authors’ findings, on both scores, are
entirely negative. First of all, a substantial
percentage of Protestant ministers are said to be
prejudiced against Jews and Judaism on
religious or theological grounds. Secondly, most
Protestant clergymen are said to be failing in
their duty to provide guidance to their
congregations, through the medium of the
pulpit, on the great social and political
problems of the day. “It is as if there had been
no Sermon on the Mount,” the authors
conclude rather sorrowfully.
I have yet to come across any scholarly
reviews of this volume by professional
sociologists. As a matter of fact, the only
review I have seen thus far was in the form of
an editorial in the May 29 issue of The Pilot,
the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of
Boston. This editorial, to put it as mildly as
possible, took an extremely dim view of the
book. It dismissed it (apparently sight unseen)
as a “piece of pseudo-sociology - undoubtedly
similar to what preceded it in the same series.”
“We cannot fail to wonder,” the editorial
concluded, “why the ADL goes on publishing
this kind of business, except to excuse its own
existence, organization and budget.
Jewish-Christian relations, so vastly improved
over these last years, are not assisted by such
so-called revelations. Simple decency suggests
that, if we are going to talk about prejudice -
any of us - we begin by searching our own
hearts before we go prying into one another’s
pulpits. If the Sermon on the Mount says
anything at all to us, it tells us to reform our
ways in the light of God’s kingdom. When each
one of us has accomplished this personal
transformation, we will have hastened the
promised day of blessedness.”
For my own part, I simply don’t feel
qualified to say whether or not the Berkeley
volume in question is as bad, from the
sociological point of view, as The Pilot makes it
out to be (or as good as its authors and
sponsors presumably think it is). So far as I am
concerned, that’s a matter for trained
sociologists to argue back and forth among
themselves in the pages of their own
professional journals.
It does seem to me, however, that The Pilot
was much too caustic in its specific reference to
ADL and that it should have exercised more
restraint in its criticism of the methodology
employed in the study. In other words, I think
the editors of The Pilot would have been better
advised to concede at the very outset that they
are really not qualified to pass anything like a
definitive judgment on technical matters of this
kind. I also think they should have refrained
from suggesting that ADL’S motives in
sponsoring the Berkeley project are self-serving
in nature. It seems to me, in other words, that
judging an organization’s motives on a matter
of this kind is totally uncalled for.
On the other hand, I, too, am beginning to
wonder if and when the Berkeley series is ever
going to come to an end. That is to say, having
looked at all of the six volumes in the Berkeley
series and having carefully read two or three of
them, I have the impression that most of them
say substantially the same thing, namely, that
the Christian religion plays a crucial role in
generating anti-Semitism.
A number of professional sociologists would
argue that, while this may or may not be true,
the Berkeley volumes, because of certain
defects in their methodology, really haven’t
proved it. Granted, however, for present
purposes, that the Berkeley findings are
substantially accurate and methodologically
sound, is it really necessary or helpful to go on
making the same point over and over again in
what promises, or threatens, to be an almost
endless series of separate volumes?
To put the question another way: Isn’t it
about time for the Berkeley sociologists and
their sponsors at ADL to turn their attention to
other matters of equal importance? After all,
there is such a thing as a law of diminishing
returns even in the field of sociology.
In offering this opinion, I am writing as one
who thinks that anti-Semitism is still a serious
problem in the United States and as one who
clearly recognizes the need for religious
sociology in general and the usefulness of this
specific form of research in particular.
Nevertheless, repeating what was said above, I
must admit that six volumes on the same
subject strike me as being more than enough.
To this I would only add that if there is to be a
seventh and an eighth and a ninth volume (and
I suspect there will be), I doubt that I will ever
get around to reading them. I am sorry about
this for the sake of my friends at ADL, but
there is a limit to the amount of time that one
can be expected to devote to any particular
subject, and I, for one, have passed that limit in
the case of the Berkeley series.